Is this HDR?

Bifurcator · Sep 25, 2008

There may be a Bifucator 3.0 is this keeps up.

So I wonder if redefining reality wrongly actually changes reality? It must by it's very definition - after all a reality without the wrong definition of HDR is a different reality from the one with.

Maybe if we just eliminated all photographers... Hmmm... <scratches head>

zeroskillz · Sep 25, 2008

And here I thought you were talking about my Handy Decoder Ring.
Oh well, another board I suppose.
And BTW, who is this Mua person? I've got to meet her, she really seems to get around. In on everybodys shoots it seems...

Tolyk · Sep 25, 2008

Bifurcator said:
There may be a Bifucator 3.0 is this keeps up.

So I wonder if redefining reality wrongly actually changes reality? It must by it's very definition - after all a reality without the wrong definition of HDR is a different reality from the one with.

Maybe if we just eliminated all photographers... Hmmm... <scratches head>

Why the death? What is the correct HDR definition ?

ANDS! · Sep 25, 2008

Tolyk said:
Why the death? What is the correct HDR definition ?

No ****. If you feel someone is giving salty advice, the remedy isn't to snark it up but to actually say "Hey, heres what you REALLY mean." I rarely use smileys but - :thumbdown:

Bifurcator · Sep 25, 2008

BS!

After answering it 5 times in depth to the enth degree and no one even bothers to search before sticking their foot in their mouths I say snark it up! Snark it GOOD!

Hmm, that sounds like an early 80's song... Snark it! Snark it good!

ANDS! · Sep 25, 2008

After answering it 5 times in depth to the enth degree and no one even bothers to search before sticking their foot in their mouths I say snark it up! Snark it GOOD!

Or you could be an adult and say "Look here" with an embedded link to your precious advice. Or be the cool kid in class rippin' on da newbs.

prodigy2k7 · Sep 25, 2008

Overread said:
HDR - high dynamic range - involves two shots (or three)

High dynamic range has nothing to do with how many images you combine, it is self explanatory, an image can have a higher dynamic range than normal, if sensors could have a higher range then they would be able to produce better details in shadows and highlights, this of course is limited to our printers and our eyes, unless the image is tone mapped...

I think i got that out right...

A square is a rectangle, a rectangle is not a square...

Moglex · Sep 30, 2008

Bifurcator said:
After answering it 5 times in depth to the enth degree and no one even bothers to search before sticking their foot in their mouths I say snark it up!

When are you going to get it into your head that words and phrases change their meaning with time?

It's childishly pointless to to continue to whine about a 'correct' meaning when the world has moved on and the definition of a word or phrase has changed.

It's been happening since the dawn of language and trying to hold out and claim you are 'right' whilst almost everyone else is wrong is about as productive as putting a saucepan on your head and rushing off to tilt and windmills.

The current, correct, definition of HDR as understood by the majority of photographers is an output image compiled of two or more input images such that the range of luminosities represented is higher that could be represented without HDR processing.

That defintion is simple and it works.

The older definition is utterly irrelevant to photographers as there is no commonly available way to view an image that is HDR according to that definition.

Bifurcator · Sep 30, 2008

ANDS! said:
Or you could be an adult and say "Look here" with an embedded link to your precious advice. Or be the cool kid in class rippin' on da newbs.

I already did that 4 or 5 times.